 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Burk v. State, 1 CA-CV 06-0029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court employee and her employer were shielded from the claimant's suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity, because the employee's act in evaluating the claimant's request to modify her parenting schedule and reporting to the superior court invoked judicial immunity regardless of the subsequent rejection of her recommendations.
|
|||||
| Carlson v. Ariz. State Pers. Bd., 1 CA-CV 06-0110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was a substantial variance between the stated grounds for the termination of an employee and the grounds upon which discipline was imposed, there was a procedural due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment and Ariz. Const. art. 2, ¿¿4; a sexual harassment complaint was unfounded, but other standards of conduct were violated.
|
|||||
| State v. Gum, 1 CA-CR 06-0683 PRPC,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's prosecution for sexual assault was not time-barred. Because seven-year period for offenses was unexpired on July 21, 1997, the date the statute of limitations was extended by an amendment to Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-107, and because sexual assault was included as an offense to which ¿ 13-107(E) applied, the limitations period was extended.
|
|||||
| Parker v. McNeill, 1 CA-CV 06-0139,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21(a) did not obligate a party entitled to costs on appeal to request those costs from the appellate court; such a request is permitted but not required. Thus, superior court should not have rejected an ex-wife's request for costs incurred on appeal and in the superior court before the mandate, and its decision was reversed.
|
|||||
| Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc., 1 CA-CV 06-0421,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tavern's employees fulfilled their legal duty of affirmative, reasonable care under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 4-244(14) by separating the patron from her vehicle providing safe transportation of the patron to her residence; that she subsequently came back to the tavern, retireved her vehicle, and got into an accident was a subsequent intervening cause.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Carroll, 1 CA-CV 06-0240,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Opt-out provision in Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 21-202(C) for prospective jurors 75 and older did not violate appellant's Arizona constitutional rights to due process and a fair jury trial. Appellant presented no evidence that citizens 75 or over constituted a distinct group.
|
|||||
| Fleischman v. Protect Our City, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0333-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Phoenix, Ariz., City Charter ch. XV, ¿ 3(D) and City Code ¿ 12-1102(a)(2) conflicted with Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 19-121(B) as city provisions were invalid as they allowed the filing of supplemental signatures after initial filing of a ballot measure petition; cities could not establish procedure for verifying signatures, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿¿19-141(D).
|
|||||
| Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ridgely, 2 CA-CV 2006-0164,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an insurance coverage dispute, summary judgment in favor of insurers was reversed because the trial court erred by finding as a matter of law that a party host was not a resident of his grandparents' home at the time of a shooting since the trial court did not consider the host's deposition testimony which contradicted a prior sworn statement.
|
|||||
| State v. Paris-Sheldon, 2 CA-CR 2006-0015,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a disorderly conduct conviction, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-2904, because a witness's testimony regarding the proximity of the trailers supported an inference that the trailers were close enough together for defendant to know an occupant of the neighboring trailer would hear the revolver's report when she fired it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
